Luke Mitchell - All quiet?

[Kenmair]

Ha ha! Thats exactly what I was thinking, Faith!
Poor Ken is definately going to end up with ulcers if he doesn't calm down a bit, poor chap.

Why don't you address the issues we've been discussing instead of passing comment? Particularly considering the effect the LM case has had on your own health?

[faithlilly]

I know exactly why the Mitchell's have remained silent as I live nearby. They deliberately ex-communicated CM after a year or so and have no contact since. I've never met CM but she comes across as wholly untrustworthy in interviews/podcasts, desperate to shift the blame and often getting basic facts wrong like in the J English car crash interview where she contradicted herself numerous times.

No hatred from me hen - I'll keep calling out chancers and fraudsters like you and JB Lean.

I lived quite near to George Micheal some years ago but do you know what…..I knew nothing about the dynamics within his family.

What is it this week? Do you know someone who knows Shane or do you actually know him yourself. If memory serves we’ve had both.

On the upside I’m glad that you think that I’m such a threat.

[faithlilly]

Why don't you address the issues we've been discussing instead of passing comment? Particularly considering the effect the LM case has had on your own health?

You are the gift that keeps giving Kenneth.

[Kenmair]

You are the gift that keeps giving Kenneth.

If you knew better I was referring to the drunken states SL has been in while addressing LM supporters pretending to be something she wasn't. No response from her sock puppet account yet though, Plebian?

[faithlilly]

If you knew better I was referring to the drunken states SL has been in while addressing LM supporters pretending to be something she wasn't. No response from her sock puppet account yet though, Plebian?

Are you trying to dox me now? I’m going to enjoy this so crack on.

I remember when Scottish men were men and not simpering bullies who tried to endanger women’s safety.

[Kenmair]

I lived quite near to George Micheal some years ago but do you know what…..I knew nothing about the dynamics within his family.

What is it this week? Do you know someone who knows Shane or do you actually know him yourself. If memory serves we’ve had both.

On the upside I’m glad that you think that I’m such a threat.

George Michael ffs! What next, Cliff Richard isn't gay, he just lives with a disgraced priest.
You're not a threat in the slightest. I'm more scared of Forbes and he's a coward/bully. Yes I've met SM but I don't have a photo or video recording of him implicating LM as guilty.

[Kenmair]

Are you trying to dox me now? I’m going to enjoy this so crack on.

I remember when Scottish men were men and not simpering bullies who tried to endanger women’s safety.

How am I endangering women's safety? You've spent years accusing a murder victims family. Take responsibility for your actions before you accuse others.

[Mr Apples]

Why didn't he just go home earlier, Mr Apples?
Besides, there is no proof whatsoever that LM went home at all between 6.30-7.00, that is the only 'possible' time according to the prosecution scenario, in which time we know he phoned David High twice and his mums landline once.
Why did LM need to stand on Newbattle Road at all after the murder showing off the' alleged' parka? Makes no sense to me!
Why didn't LM sneak home as soon as possible after the murder using back paths as much as possible?
Why the need to display himself at all if he was the killer?
He even managed to use his phone two or three times too without leaving any DNA on it, although we'll be told he cleaned it too.
There's just too much that defies logic for a lot of people, Mr Apples.

LM was going to Jodi's at 1800 that evening regardless. Judith had grounded Jodi a few weeks earlier because of truanting school, which involved her not being allowed out before 1800 and doing some household chores. Judith unexpectedly lifted the grounding that day and Jodi texted LM at 1634 to say she'd be allowed out before 1800. Why would Jodi text LM at 1634 to she was allowed out, when LM was going over to her house anyway that evening after 1800? Surely it was to meet up before 1800? As per AO's testimony, Jodi left her house at 1650 (after getting changed and listening to a Rod Stewart track with Judith and JosJ), which suggests she was going to meet LM before 1800 (she'd told Judith she was going to meet with LM, and only LM, and be mucking around at EH). Why, then, did LM say he left the house at 1740 to go and meet with Jodi when Jodi had set off to be with him 50 mins earlier and knowing Jodi had not to walk the path alone? Surely, he should have set off 45 mins - 60 mins earlier if he was to meet Jodi? I think they had, in light of Jodi's ungrounding that day, made an arrangement by text to meet up at 1700 and that's why LM wiped his mobile phone's entire history before police seized it at DPS in the early hours of 01.07.03, for it held incriminating evidence - including the time of a meet-up earlier than their normal 1800. Thats why AB saw him at 1655 hrs at the EH end if RDP (AB told the police she was as sure as she could be it was LM she saw, and was taken aback by how much a photo in a newspaper of LM she saw looked like the male youth she saw that day).

As for why LM didn't sneak home earlier ... he tried to sneak home but was spotted by LF & RW at 1742. He had no choice but to cross the road after murdering Jodi, and not only that, he couldn't risk looking suspicious on the road, for example by running, looking flustered or climbing fences to get back home. But, inevitably, he was seen on the quite busy rural NB rd at peak time when people were driving home to Dalkeith from work, etc. He was at a standstill when the 2 women saw him, not knowing what to do, and that's why the 2 women said he looked suspicious and cheesed off; I think LM at that point was still angry and miffed, not least as he had a murder to hide. As for LM not going home earlier, I suspect he'd made a decision by then that he would tell police that he was waiting on Jodi at that point in time and also still planning what to do or say about other parts of the murder. Why he chose to stay on the nb rd for 30 to 40 mins is anyone's guess. One thing it does prove is that LM must have been confident that people who may have walked by him would not have noticed any blood upon him. Interestingly, the gate where LM was spotted at on NB rd was directly in line with the locus; if LM continued down the woodland strip after murdering Jodi, then he would have emerged on the nb  road, exactly opposite the wooden gate.

[Parky41]

Firstly I would apply that many things were skewed somewhat when working around the many lies from Lean; Such as saying SM was off out around 5:30pm, wouldn't do for the truth here because his actual time of leaving fits around his younger brothers actions that evening. SM was home until at least 6:20pm. But let's just look at what I have always said.

There are no sightings of Mitchell from where he claimed to have been. He had been seen by boys who knew him, he applied he had walked to BC and back again a 'couple of times' because he had been seen, and again by one of the boys on his return journey. It is not the same thing at all as being seen where he claimed, it is the other way around. Giving reason for being seen there those two times, where he could not dispute being identified. In a small time frame he was seen by them and two motorists. It doesn't matter if he was seen 20/30mins  later by the boy on his return, it is the same thing. A brief sighting that he incorporated in his claim of walking there and back to where he was never seen.

He was seen several hundred yards away at the point where he claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop. Seen by F&W near to RDP and the woodland strip where Jodi was murdered. And some 45mins before then by AB in Easthouses.


The shuffling around those lies. SM didn't leave home until after 6:20pm and not around 5:30pm. I would imagine that dealing with his mother would be one thing after such an event, dealing with his brother something else entirely? What took place between then and his second call to DH? He had asked him to his house, 20mins barely passed by and he chases him, but he doesn't just chase him to see where he was as always thought, he called him to change the meeting place away from his house and in the Abbey instead. At that point a fire had been decided upon in the Mitchell garden. If he did have a phone in view when the boy on the cycle past, we can certainly apply this may have been his first call to DH. Let's face it, the second call to his mother, the reason they gave was absolute nonsense. The claim of asking if Jodi had been to the house.

Therefore it all still stands. Being seen collectively in a short period of time, then briefly some time later does not equate to Mitchell being where he claimed, does not equate to him standing out on NR in full view of everyone for that ludicrous time frame, not even close.

[Chris_Halkides]

The way you keep banging on about a receipt it’s as if this is the magic ticket that solves the case.  Without it there is no case but with it you may as well all pack up and go home (as Joe Bloggs has said).  Hence my opening comment.  Yes juries can make mistakes but they still have had the full facts at their disposal.  They sat through every scrap of evidence.  Why should armchair detectives who have not had access to the full facts as presented in court have their opinions treated as at least as valid if not more valid than those of the jury?  That was my point.  Unless they have somehow stumbled on something new that wasn’t heard in court of course….  I always thought Knox and Sollecito was a miscarriage of justice but it was an opinion formed on an imperfect understanding of all the evidence, not enough to state with absolute certainty that I was right of course. I also think Lucy Letby is guilty but concede it may be one on the biggest miscarriages of justice.  Time will tell. FYI I concede the same re: Mitchell. .
As for the rest of your post I take it from your example that you don’t believe any eyewitness testimony is reliable.  Should it therefore all be excluded on principle?  Not just in this case but in every case past, present and future?

The only reason I continued to discuss the lack of a receipt is to correct your misimpression of what I had said.  Eyewitness testimony has to be evaluated on its merits individually, and there are many factors that contribute to its reliability or lack thereof.  There is also the question of its value, apart from its reliability.  The chief problem with the testimony of Fleming and Walsh is that even if it were completely accurate, it would only mean that LM was a few hundred yards from where he said he was.  In other words, it would not have much probative value.

[Joe Blogs]

Why don't you address the issues we've been discussing instead of passing comment? Particularly considering the effect the LM case has had on your own health?

Thanks for the concern, Ken, but my health is just fine!
Although i'm recovering from a hip operation at the moment, which is no big deal.

[Joe Blogs]

I spoke to Michael Hickey’s mum many years ago at a meeting of Liberty and she was confronted often with the same hatred displayed towards Corrine often on this page. Of course her son was convicted of killing a child. He didn’t of course and had his conviction was eventually quashed. Only his mother campaigned for him, no other family.

You’d think that we’d learn.

Thanks Faith.

[Mr Apples]

The only reason I continued to discuss the lack of a receipt is to correct your misimpression of what I had said.  Eyewitness testimony has to be evaluated on its merits individually, and there are many factors that contribute to its reliability or lack thereof.  There is also the question of its value, apart from its reliability.  The chief problem with the testimony of Fleming and Walsh is that even if it were completely accurate, it would only mean that LM was a few hundred yards from where he said he was.  In other words, it would not have much probative value.

Well of course it had probative value. When evaluating the evidence holistically, as was naturally done with this entirely circumstantial case, F&W's sighting was accepted by the jury and thus was a part of the jigsaw that got LM convicted.

[Joe Blogs]

Firstly I would apply that many things were skewed somewhat when working around the many lies from Lean; Such as saying SM was off out around 5:30pm, wouldn't do for the truth here because his actual time of leaving fits around his younger brothers actions that evening. SM was home until at least 6:20pm. But let's just look at what I have always said.

There are no sightings of Mitchell from where he claimed to have been. He had been seen by boys who knew him, he applied he had walked to BC and back again a 'couple of times' because he had been seen, and again by one of the boys on his return journey. It is not the same thing at all as being seen where he claimed, it is the other way around. Giving reason for being seen there those two times, where he could not dispute being identified. In a small time frame he was seen by them and two motorists. It doesn't matter if he was seen 20/30mins  later by the boy on his return, it is the same thing. A brief sighting that he incorporated in his claim of walking there and back to where he was never seen.

He was seen several hundred yards away at the point where he claimed to be sitting on the wall around the bus stop. Seen by F&W near to RDP and the woodland strip where Jodi was murdered. And some 45mins before then by AB in Easthouses.


The shuffling around those lies. SM didn't leave home until after 6:20pm and not around 5:30pm. I would imagine that dealing with his mother would be one thing after such an event, dealing with his brother something else entirely? What took place between then and his second call to DH? He had asked him to his house, 20mins barely passed by and he chases him, but he doesn't just chase him to see where he was as always thought, he called him to change the meeting place away from his house and in the Abbey instead. At that point a fire had been decided upon in the Mitchell garden. If he did have a phone in view when the boy on the cycle past, we can certainly apply this may have been his first call to DH. Let's face it, the second call to his mother, the reason they gave was absolute nonsense. The claim of asking if Jodi had been to the house.

Therefore it all still stands. Being seen collectively in a short period of time, then briefly some time later does not equate to Mitchell being where he claimed, does not equate to him standing out on NR in full view of everyone for that ludicrous time frame, not even close.

If LM is guilty, Peter, what was he hoping to achieve standing on Newbattle Road after the murder?

[Mr Apples]

Contacting DH twice on the night of the murder was, I suggest, out of the ordinary at that period in LM's life, since he was with Jodi most evenings then. Another coincidence? I don't think so. I'm surprised ADT never asked DH if it was common for LM to phone him to meet up at that period.